NALLANI SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. NALLAMI VARALAKSHMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri K.V.Muralidhar Patnaik, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

(2.) The appellant and respondent No.1 are husband and wife respectively. In the present appeal, challenge is to the order dtd. 22/8/2017 passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in F.C.O.P.No.1285 of 2013. The first respondent-wife filed the said Original Petition before the Family Court, under Ss. 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The principal contention advanced by Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-husband, is that when there is an order granting maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. by a competent Court, an application under Sec. 18 of the Act cannot be maintained by the first respondent-wife. While referring to Sec. 18 of the Act, it is also vehemently contended by the leaned counsel for the appellant that unless the mandatory requirements of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 18 of the Act are established, the applicant under the said provision of law is not entitled for the relief. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Geeta Soni v/s. Omprakash Soni,LAWS(CHH) 2012 4 63.